*Nelly song reference*

The article “How A.I. Will Drive the Future of Work” discusses how artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the workplace and will continue to do so in the future. The author argues that AI will not only replace jobs, but also create new opportunities for workers. One of the main benefits of AI is its ability to automate routine tasks, freeing up time for workers to focus on more creative and strategic work. AI can also assist workers in decision-making, providing data-driven insights that humans may not be able to identify on their own. The article “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humans” explores the potential impact of AI on human society, raising both opportunities and concerns. The author argues that AI has the potential to revolutionize fields such as healthcare, transportation, and education, but that its implementation must be carefully considered. One of the main benefits of AI is its ability to process and analyze large amounts of data quickly and accurately. This could lead to significant advancements in healthcare, such as the development of personalized medicine and the ability to detect diseases at an early stage. In transportation, AI could lead to safer and more efficient modes of transportation, such as self-driving cars.

Suggestions that the articles make had resonated with me. I agree that we as humans in order too combat this, workers need to focus on developing skills that are difficult for AI to replicate, such as emotional intelligence, critical thinking, and problem-solving. This keeps us around, gives us more of a purpose. I’m not sure why we would have to put more effort to show that we as humans are needed compare to a machine, but hey, welcome to 2023 I guess.

I think it’s scary of how advanced AI has become and the possibility of how much more advanced it can get. But every individual has purpose and I don’t fully think we are replaceable. But it is a scary thought.

By feeding Artificial Intelligence data sets, we are essentially ensuring that the past will be repeated. That is the skill set of Artificial Intelligence, recreation of past ideas or works.

That is why AI is “likely to create greater income inequality” as stated by Marina Gorbis. Because AI is fantastic at replicating patterns, including patterns of income inequality, racism, and other unethical practices.

The ability to recognize patterns make modern AI extremely effective in health care, as discussed in “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humans”. AI has the capability to revolutionize healthcare based on pattern recognition skills that far surpass the capabilities of the human doctor.

There are some things that a robot cannot replicate, like spontaneous human kindness and surprise conversations, things that we encounter out in our daily lives that only human beings can produce.

Sometimes we get so lost in productivity that it is the small moments like a pay it forward line at the Dunkin’ Donuts or someone commenting on the weather that make a day memorable or happy or good.

The humanness of daily life can create mistakes and moments of laze, but it also creates connection and meaning.

Alsever Article: here

Anderson Article: here

You know, here’s where I’m going to come across as a hypocrite because I’m so “grrr AI bad blah-blah-blah,” but I really like go to the supermarket and not have someone bag my groceries for me. Especially if after a workout without my tensions being released, I don’t want to go through the grocery conveyer belt. I mean, I’m a Whole Foods kinda guy, so you know I’m either really rich or really edgy (certainly not rich). Here’s my thing, there is always the option present at this moment. We cannot lose that. Having those self checkouts is the extent I’m willing to go, because whenever something goes wrong, I have to call over the employee and we have a nice chat and it’s all cool – often uplifts my mood. I just hate the idea of force-fed mechanical human interaction, makes me sad.

To have AI predict human response for the benefit of corporate security is some major schmuck s*it, however. Good luck running a business that loyal customers (which is never the demographic past year five, usually) want to go shop at. You can be Walmart, but you’ll never be fulfilled internally as the owner of Princeton Record Exchange who saw my (at the time) 23 year old self transform into my fifteen year old self as he noticed that I was buying my third copy of Kate Bush’s Hounds of Love on vinyl (I gave it to my best friend), and proceeded to tell me about how he wrote her a letter back around the time that that album came out and that KATE BUSH (one of the most reclusive figures in all of contemporary music) wrote him back with a hand-written letter! Like, woah! It was magical to hear him tell me this and he seemed so joyed at my enthusiasm for his story. My mom was there too I took her record shopping and even SHE was amazed by my sudden teen-like exuberance.

With these new kinds of modes and ways of doing things, and for however well they may statistically benefit the human race, I really just hope that we don’t lose the suddenness of it all. That owner told me that story right after lockdown ended (the whole COVID-19 thing), and in the air was a risk for whatever! Right? And I’m not suggesting taking away the opportunities for those intently protective to have the opportunity to be so, but there is magic in uncertainty. If you fall in love with someone you don’t know if they’ll break your heart or not, but you go for it (I hope) because the possibilities are beautiful. If you try something a bit dangerous you might slightly hurt yourself or worse, but think about the cool video of you busting ass that you can watch on repeat. Do you catch my drift or am I being too *wink wink* here?

My point is, I don’t want AI to make the world a place where people are afraid to live, make mistakes, take chances, make an ass out of themselves, talk to that girl/guy/other, spend a few bucks on that cookie they like, challenge those a bit more uninformed, and do that weird thing with their appearance that will most likely look horrendous but might miraculously be their new go-to.

AI is a neat aid to us, but if it starts to “surpass” us in the ways that these articles suggest then we’re really just sh*tting on ourselves for greed of convenience, but so much of what makes us human is inconvenient. I would rather drive two hours to see a friend that I love for a thirty minute coffee shop chat than five minutes to spend time with a friend that is alright but not too favorable to be around but has a lot of food in the fridge and a pool.

That stated, if e-mail finally dies I might rejoice.

Found poetry is something we got to talking about a little bit last semester in e-lit when I got to talk a bit about the Blackout Poetry Tool. Keith Holyoak also talks some about it in his article which explores the question Can AI Write Authentic Poetry?

Holyoak dove too deep into that question of AI truly being able to create real poetry, the explanation for what found poetry is serves as an important reminder, yes, but also gives a good preface into his stance and somewhat even goes into the why.

I, for one, already have an idea of where I stand on this issue for the reasons expressed in one of my previous blogs. Artificial intelligence can only use what it’s been given, as is the case with humans also. But here’s the catch: even though humanity is given such boundless resources and knowledge, we still have limited knowledge of and access to much of it. I mean why do you think things like AI and other technologies are still developing and discovering things? Because there’s still more out there.

So that said, AI is still limited to human knowledge, language and opinions, with a “brain” modeled much after the mind of man (I mean, man created it after all, and its “brain” is the internet which includes record of the endless spewing of human thought, knowledge, stupidity, wisdom, and interaction). It may not be able to experience or develop the way we do, but it can calculate and model what our experience and development is like. On top of this, its “brain” has the ability to work much faster than ours do, in part because we have so heavily relied on it’s computational powers as a replacement for our own (rather than using it more like a crutch when some part of us needs rest).

And because this “brain” has become so vast with the developments of AI technology and its codes modeled to function similarly to humans that the way it functions is now somewhat unpredictable at times.

Computer programs can now learn from enormous sets of data using methods called deep learning. What the programs learn, and how they will behave after learning, is very difficult (perhaps impossible) to predict in advance. The question has arisen (semiseriously) whether computer programs ought to be listed as coauthors of scientific papers reporting discoveries to which they contributed. There is no doubt that some forms of creativity are within the reach, and indeed the grasp, of computer programs.

Can AI Write Authentic Poetry? Keith Holyoak

When we did AI-generated poems in class a few weeks ago and shared them, most did not include much wordplay or unique uses of clichés (rather, the clichés were used in the most cliché ways where it was not necessary to a strong poem). So given how fast AI can learn and develop, I decided to try it again with a poem I wrote last year and recently re-edited.

I think it goes without saying, but just to clarify, the first document attachment is my own work (with italics being words pulled from the English Standard Version of Psalm 22 John 19:30), while the second was AI generated. When it comes to creative writing, I’m sure that if we’ve made it this far into a degree in English Writing (regardless of our status as graduate or undergraduate) that we’ve had the phrase “show, don’t tell” beaten into our minds. AI language models like ChatGPT may see these words a lot, considering its vast “brain” that is the internet, but it hasn’t yet reached a point where it can understand the word. It associates definitions to words because there are online dictionaries, sure, and that leaves open the possibility; in the meantime, while it can connect the dots, it has not yet been able to elicit or create its own meaning from that in the same way we have because it has no ability to personally experience these things its prompted to write about.

(Sorry this post ends pretty abruptly, Holy Week is next level busy this year).

Here are some of my thoughts on my presentation today… (there are a lot, but that’s for class discussion!)

Visual Aesthetics & AI

Visual Aesthetics & AI presentation

During the semester I think I’ve been able to stop seeing AI as a bad thing and see the positive side. When I started reading the article How Will AI Image Generators Affect Artists? I thought, what about the effort of artists, then AI can be compared to Michelangelo, Leonardo, Goya, Dalí and all of them who dedicated their lives to art. I thought that in seconds an AI could create a masterpiece and that the other artists spent years to make just one work. But after much reflection and reading the article, I think so, although many made traditional art, the creative process is what matters, what is in my mind to be able to capture something, to be able to do something. In the same way as I have mentioned many times, AI appears as a tool that allows you to optimize processes of daily life, so in art it can help create concepts of what I want to do and from that create something better, AI helps to give clarity, to expose what is in my mind.

The second article led me to think about Neruda and Skármeta both Chilean writers whose works move between metaphors. The first spoke of the sky crying, of the smile like a butterfly, of spears, of water… He says beautiful things in banal words, common expressions, and sentences full of feeling. I felt that?, yes, I feel every letter, every word and more in Poem XX:

“I can write the saddest verses of all tonight.
I loved her, and sometimes she loved me too.”

For his part, Skármeta said, taking an example from Neruda:

“He told me that my smile spreads like a butterfly on my face; He told me that my laughter was a rose, a spear that breaks down, a water that bursts; … He told me that my laughter was a sudden wave of silver; He told me that he liked me when I was silent because I was absent; I lack time to celebrate your hair, one by one I must count and praise them.”

This is the pro of metaphors and poetry that allow us to create a new language, a language that allows us to express sadness and love, a language that allows another being to feel beautiful things or cry with it.

I asked Chat GPT to write a poem full of metaphors and this was the result.

Love is a river that flows in the chest, A burning fire that never rests, A melody that plays in the silence, A flower that blooms in the driest of fields.

Sadness is a wounded bird in the sky, An endless sea that stirs the tempest, A cruel winter that freezes the bones, A torrential rain that soaks the loneliness.

Happiness is a cool breeze on the skin, A radiant sun that lights the way, A warm hug that comforts the being, A sincere smile that makes the world more divine.

Life is an open book of adventures, A winding path full of surprises, A rollercoaster of emotions and madness, A work of art in which we all are pieces.

Maybe I didn’t feel the same way when reading poetry, but I think it’s because of my prejudice and assumptions about AIs. But, I think it’s a good advance, you could get closer to what artists do.

This weeks readings were interesting. The topic of poetry/art and AI is something I really didn’t consider or even think about. I always turn my thinking to education when I think of AI (not sure why but I do). To think that AI could possibly try and take over poetry and art is a bit crazy. Poetry/art is very authentic and hard for a computer emulate and try to take over.

Now AI is taking over in so many areas of our lives right now. Some people believe it’s good and others believe it’s wrong and a waste. When I looked up what AI really is this is the definition I received: Artificial intelligence is a wide-ranging branch of computer science concerned with building smart machines capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. Now although this definition says that it is capable of performing task that are usually performed by humans, it doesn’t mention anything about AI having human emotions. Having emotions/ feelings plays a major part as an artist. If every poem or painting was made without any emotion behind is…is it really art? When you read a poem you want to be able to feel the emotions behind it. You want to be able to have a sense of what the artist was going through at the moment of writing that poem. AI isn’t able to provide that.

When it comes to poetry and art, it usually stems from ones feelings and emotions. Their poems usually comes from how they are feeling about something at a certain moment. Even a piece of art work comes from ones emotions, their piece of art can explain so much of someones life and AI is incapable of doing that no matter how good it is. AI has no way of showing emotion and bringing it out through poetry. No matter how good AI portrays to be, it can never take over the work of an artist. Is can never replace an artist and what they do authentically.

If AI tries to replace artist…then what are us humans left with?

Every now and then I question if the worst of the worst are as bad as the worst.

Really, The Chicago Tribune wanna hide behind an accountwall?

I don’t have the energy to be flooded with more emails.

Knowing is half the battle but I’d rather pacify this war.

Little big men in milly suits are greedy little devils.

It’s impressive how they stay in power lacking good disguise.

Kill the Vatican and you kill the Pope.

Even posting here am I safe to b***h and mope?

Sliver me out in ten when the bots take over.

Try to purvey a culture that doesn’t exist.

Everyone donated to the Vatican when it should have fed them.

Queue another burning and hopeless hearts start hurting.

Underlining oppression is false hope and weak interpretation.

Likeminded individuals on silence no hesitation.

Always controlling maintenence are we ever in control?

Withered is a heart that was never favored to start.

Inside my mind is a poem queued in cart.

Tried to make my own but it doesn’t have a home.

Hurry, don’t think about it or you’ll catch me a fraud.

Had an A in poetry but I’m not too anachronistic.

Is that a type of poem or is my understanding off the grid?

Striving for some rhymes, is this all authentic?

Try me in dispute but my attempt, ain’t it cute?

Evil is the currency in my bag.

Quill on paper draw a stag.

Under the future moon is an offspring unaware.

Lives on chips with nothing to dip.

Always with the Hallmark card bullshit, is authentic poetry no longer a hit?

Artificial Intelligence is incapable of being sincere. It doesn’t share the neural activity that humans do and cannot understand any of the things it writes. Writing poetry is one of the most insincere activities it can do, since it isn’t an actual being capable of experiencing mental development. Inner experience is something that computer algorithms fail time and time again to emulate, and no amount of “good” artificial writing can make up for that fact. Some people will think that a computer or the internet is more complex than a frog’s brain, but will admit that the frog is more likely to have inner experience.

Artificial Insincerity is not restricted to just words and writing. Imagery, art, and photography are also at risk of being tampered with. The power that ai softwares have to make not only make an image, but also emulate the feeling of it being man-made, is a valid concern. In the past year alone I have seen many online images that were created by an ai. They never looked good, in all honesty it was obvious from the jump that a person did not make the images. But it got even worse when I started seeing images of realistic people that turned out to be the work of ai. When ai-produced realistic images begin to eb used in place of real people, specifically in the context of using ai images of black people or real black people, it becomes a problem that needs to confronted as quickly as possible. Because when these issues arise, it sparks a series of questions about the ethics of dishonest imagery credibility.

Google told me that according to Oxford Languages art is”the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”

Sure you can stop reading at the word human say ah-ha, there it is right there, it says human, so you have to be a human to make art. But you could also take a step further.

Why is art inherently human? It is the words that come afterword that explain it perfectly. It is “human creative skill and imagination” that make art.

What does the word creativity mean?

Well I asked Google, who checked in with Oxford Languages for me again, and they said that creativity is “the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work.”

And imagination is “the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.”

What is the common thread here?

Originality. But that doesn’t make any sense. The AI can take any number of paintings and combine aspects of them to achieve something new and supposedly creative as many times as you’d like.

Much like a human perceives the world and art around them and utilizes it as inspiration to form art; AI can now do the same thing.

So did Oxford Language lie to Google, who lied to me when they said that art is a demonstration of a uniquely human skill?

Maybe, or perhaps it is the intentionality behind art that produces meaning.

You can look at a Monet or a Van Gough and wonder: Why did he place this object here? What made him chose this color? Is it blue because he was sad? Is it yellow because he was happy?

When you look at a painting produced by AI technology you cannot ask any of those questions, because there is no reason. The Artificial Intelligence has no intentionality in what it does.

It is merely a soulless replication of the heart and soul of generations of artists who created art for a reason. Because they were sad, because they were happy, because they loved somebody.

What makes art meaningful are the secret pockets of human intention in every brush stroke and color choice. That is what allows people to look at a still piece of canvas with pigment on it for hours on end and still have something to think about.

That is what AI cannot replicate and why art is a human skill.